My position is elaborated above, in the preceding pages.
It appears that Zuckerberg was not subpoenaed in the Murthy litigation, nor was the sworn testimony by affidavit taken from any Facebook employee. It's actually somewhat difficult to determine exactly what evidence was presented to the court.
When you're prosecuting a case against the government about what it did to Facebook, you'd think testimony from Facebook, if not Zuckerberg that yes, the government coerced us, would be highly relevant to that case. And you would get it if you could. This is speculation, but it's educated speculation and really just common sense. You claim the government did unto Facebook, who in turn did unto you. If you are serious about winning that case (as opposed to just being performative, which is always a possibility) you do your damndest to secure evidence from Facebook that the government did unto them.
Further, the Murthy case was well-publicized, and if you were onerously put-upon by the government, you'd think you'd step up and say something about it, or, if it didn't happen as the plaintiffs said, you should probably pipe up and say so. Facebook could have even intervened in the case to help keep the government off its back or to vindicate the government.
Yet, Zuckerberg and Facebook were notably silent all during that case.
Now, you could argue that it was politically motivated not to harm (or assist) the Biden Administration, just like it is obviously politically motivated to curry favor with the Trump administration. But you can't have it both ways: that the truth is finally revealed to the Trump administration.
But only one of those administrations is known for being petty and retaliatory, both in threat and actuality.